Slashdot Mirror


Honeymonkeys Discover Undisclosed Vulnerability

spafbnerf writes "Securityfocus is running an article on Microsoft's honeymonkey project, previously covered on Slashdot. In early July 2005, this project discovered its first exploit for a vulnerability that had not been publicly disclosed, the JView profiler vulnerability which Microsoft announced later that month. "

140 comments

  1. Big respect to the guys behind this. by mrRay720 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have no idea what Honeymonkey is, what Windows is, or even who Microsoft are.

    BUT....Damn "Honeymonkey" is such a cool codename. I'm going to name my firstborn after it!

    1. Re:Big respect to the guys behind this. by Noaccess0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Where do I sign up? I want to be attacked by honey monkeys. They are so cute and tastey.

      I'm surprised - No "In soviet Russia, Honey Monkey attacks you" or "I for one welcome our honey- flavoured, feces throwing overlords" yet.

    2. Re:Big respect to the guys behind this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honey monkeys! Ickle baby primates rolling around in honey all day.

    3. Re:Big respect to the guys behind this. by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny
      Damn "Honeymonkey" is such a cool codename.

      At last, my search for a new nickname for my penis is over.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Big respect to the guys behind this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      honeymonkey is really cool.

      but i prefer to call mine THROB.

    5. Re:Big respect to the guys behind this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> my penis

      Hairy and sticky, eh?

  2. Honeymonkeys and typewriters... by jtcedinburgh · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aha, the new MS OS development team has been revealed: an infinite number of honeymonkeys at an infinite number of typewriters...

    Explains a lot...

    1. Re:Honeymonkeys and typewriters... by Baorc · · Score: 1

      an infinite number of honeymonkeys at an infinite number of typewriters...

      Actually they didn't make their riches by buying an infinite ammount of monkey. They just hired some to be CEO's. And if my calculations are correct, they only have a couple of thousand, at most, coding. Which I believe explains more.

    2. Re:Honeymonkeys and typewriters... by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 1

      It would explain the seemingly random slippage of their schedules...

    3. Re:Honeymonkeys and typewriters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize that this will probably be marked as a troll, but in reality that particular "comparison" would be closer to open-source development, as it provides the potential for the population at large to participate.

      Of course the whole analogy is moot anyway, because it isn't as if programmers are just randomly tapping away at keys until they've got a result (except in the case of doing Perl-style regular expressions).

    4. Re:Honeymonkeys and typewriters... by WoodieR · · Score: 1

      should that not read... " at an infinite number of Hypewriters... "

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
  3. The key word is unpatched. by mikeophile · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft has identified 752 specific addresses owned by 287 Web sites that contain programs able to install themselves on a completely unpatched Windows XP system.

    I don't think I have a stronger word than DUH!

    1. Re:The key word is unpatched. by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      There's less of a "Duh" if it's an unpatched edition of XP with SP2. The wonders of Windows Firewall are supposed to portect you from nasties outside your box...

  4. Another one? by Sierpinski · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You mean to say that *gasp* a Microsoft product has a vulnerability? I refuse to believe it!

    Perhaps they should start with the assumption that their applications are vulnerable, and work from there, instead of the other way around!

    1. Re:Another one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that kind of what they are doing here? e.i. surfing the web with patched (and some unpatched) systems, trying to get "infected". If they where assuming that they where invulnerable, as you suggest, there would be no reason to do that.

    2. Re:Another one? by Sierpinski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was referring to the concept of testing such applications BEFORE releasing them to the public. How many years have there been updates for Windows? If I remember correctly Windows 2000 went through 5 service packs, totalling hundreds of patches. (I should know, I had to download them constantly.)

      As part of the software development lifecycle, there is a part normally called something like Testing/Debugging. I'm suggesting that maybe they should spend some more time in that stage, rather than using the majority of their paying users as beta testers. Most other companies release beta products for free, then charge for the actual "finished" product. Microsoft releases these applications/operating systems to the public (for a cost) and has them beta test.

      Flamebait the original comment all you want, but the point still stands. Microsoft has repeatedly charged for a "new product" (new OS version) when it seems that if they did it right for once, they wouldn't need to come up with another version every 2-3 years, charging everyone each time. (And don't even get me started on the subject of not allowing an OS "upgrade" from a 'Full version' CD. I ran into this with Windows 98SE and ended up having to scrub my installation because my more expensive Full Version cd wouldn't upgrade my old Windows version.)

    3. Re:Another one? by LO0G · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ummm...

      So let's say that Microsoft tests Windows Vista in this way.

      What information do they learn? Remember - the bad guys don't have access to Windows Vista, so they can't know about exploits in the new code in Windows Vista.

      It's a chicken and egg problem - the bad guys can't know about 0day Windows Vista exploits because they don't have access to Windows Vista to exploit it.

      If they find exploits in Windows Vista, it's because they're also in XP. If they're in XP, they can simply test with XP.

      A honeymonkey does absolutely no good BEFORE the OS is released.

    4. Re:Another one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, Microsoft has THE SOURCE CODE!!!??? Apparently Microsoft is so incompetent they can't audit their own code to find vulnerabilities before a product is shipped. And folks like you assume they aren't even going to try. Great.

      The state of IT security is amazingly pathetic. We've got companies with billions of dollars who 1) can't code and 2) have the NERVE to sue or complain when other people (who aren't even on their payroll) find the vulnereabilities.

      How about this Microsoft: take about 10 billion dollars and figure out a way to fix security problems BEFORE products are shipped.

      This HoneyMonkey crap is just an admission of failure. Imagine an airplane factory that builds airplanes by using the "throw it together, ship it, see what breaks out in the wild, release an upgrade" technique.

    5. Re:Another one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I remember correctly Windows 2000 went through 5 service packs

      No, you do not remember correctly. Windows 2000 is currently at SP4. MS scrapped plans for SP5 in favor of just putting together a Win2k security rollup in it's place.

      ------------

      Listening to slashdotters talk about Windows is like listening to AOLers talk about Linux.

    6. Re:Another one? by pfleming · · Score: 1
      (And don't even get me started on the subject of not allowing an OS "upgrade" from a 'Full version' CD. I ran into this with Windows 98SE and ended up having to scrub my installation because my more expensive Full Version cd wouldn't upgrade my old Windows version.)
      Maybe too late now, but all you had to do was rename win.com to something else and the full version would install. The upgrade version will install if win.com exists and the full version refuses to install if win.com exists. And if I remember right (from the last time I did a 98se install) the win.com file could be 0 bytes for the upgrade to work.
    7. Re:Another one? by Flendon · · Score: 1
      Ummm...

      So let's say that Microsoft tests Windows Vista in this way.

      What information do they learn? Remember - the bad guys don't have access to Windows Vista, so they can't know about exploits in the new code in Windows Vista.

      It's a chicken and egg problem - the bad guys can't know about 0day Windows Vista exploits because they don't have access to Windows Vista to exploit it.

      If they find exploits in Windows Vista, it's because they're also in XP. If they're in XP, they can simply test with XP.

      A honeymonkey does absolutely no good BEFORE the OS is released.


      Do you really think no hackers are in on the beta testing? Can you really be that naive? All you need to get a beta copy is an MSDN license which is only $699. This may be out of reach of many script kiddies, but is easily obtainable by those hackers able to do actual vulnerability research and reverse engineering. The hackers, if they are smart, won't put the vulnerabilites up on the web before the OS goes mainstream though. The point is though that MS is, or at least should be, more than capable of checking their own source code and letting their partners and beta testers do so as well. If a bunch of hackers can find all these problems why can't MS with their billions? Answer spending money on reviewing source would cut into profit and it's easier and cheaper to patch later once someone else finds the problem.
      --
      chown -R us ./base
  5. This is a good thing by nuclearpenguins · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't you want people to find and fix the vulnerabilities in the OS before it goes public? Or will this just turn into another Slashdot anti-MS circle jerk?

    --
    Anonymous Coward: "This is slashdot. Accuracy is second class citizen here, unlike King Bias."
    1. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Is it a good thing that this vulnerability was found? Yup, positively!

      But as the HM project detected this vulnerability because it was being actively exploited by the bad-guys, *and* this vuln. was previously unknown, this is in fact a zero-day exploit.

      These are bad things in anybodies OS.

    2. Re:This is a good thing by Marthisdil · · Score: 0

      this is slashdot - if the idiots here can't blame microsoft for all their woes, then they would have to try and explain why they don't have girlfriends/wives/loose sisters...

    3. Re:This is a good thing by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 0

      Don't you want people to find and fix the vulnerabilities in the OS before it goes public? Or will this just turn into another Slashdot anti-MS circle jerk?
      Hello, Welcome to Slashdot!

      --
      "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
    4. Re:This is a good thing by shotfeel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now if they'd go one step farther and compile a database of sites that "attacked" and allowed access to it for use as a blacklist. We've got spiders walking all over the net compiling all kinds of databases, I'm surprised nobody's done one like that before.

    5. Re:This is a good thing by kfg · · Score: 1

      Well, yes. I do wish them to find and fix the vulnerabilities of the OS before it goes public.

      That would avoid having vulnerabilities in the wild, such as the one refered to in the article, before the authors of the OS are aware of it.

      I want the Good Guys to find them first.

      KFG

    6. Re:This is a good thing by Michalson · · Score: 1

      I doubt they'd want to do this. As explained in the article, some of these sites seem to be "on the inside" - when a zero day vulnerability was found by one, it was shared with the others. This suggests they are part of one community (messageboard/mailing list/IRC room/Usenet group).

      By not telling the blackhats that they've been found out, Microsoft gains the ability to spy on their activities. This means the next time one of them finds a zero day vulnerability, Microsoft will know about it within hours when one of their monkey machines rechecks it.

    7. Re:This is a good thing by sootman · · Score: 1

      They haven't, but others have, more or less. That's my personal favorite /etc/hosts file (works on Win, Mac, & Lin) but there are many others to choose from.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    8. Re:This is a good thing by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 1

      Though calling Microsoft the Good Guys might be carrying it a bit far...

    9. Re:This is a good thing by Intron · · Score: 1

      Since users can't be depended on to keep their systems updated, there is a simple fix. MS could just have HM keep an updated list of malicious sites. Then IE could periodically download the list and block you from visiting them. This would prevent people from accidentally downloading viruses, spyware or Linux onto their machine.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    10. Re:This is a good thing by pfleming · · Score: 1
      Now if they'd go one step farther and compile a database of sites that "attacked" and allowed access to it for use as a blacklist. We've got spiders walking all over the net compiling all kinds of databases, I'm surprised nobody's done one like that before.
      Actually they (MS) searched the net, found what other people were using as their hosts file and then visited those sites. So this is actually the opposite of what you are suggesting. MS is using other people's host files to find out what they considered "bad sites" and then visited them.
  6. So MS Not Altogether Evil? by Evil+W1zard · · Score: 0

    Actually this is a great initiative in my opinion and more things like this need to get done to proactively find threats and remove them from what has become a way too hostile Internet. Although I have to wonder if MS gets frustrated when they go to sites that install Claria software on their detection workstations...

    --
    News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
  7. It just occurred to me. by mikeophile · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The researchers determine whether each monkey's system has been compromised by using another ongoing project, the Strider Flight Data Recorder, which detects changes to system files and registries.

    Why not build a virtual machine into the browser itself?

    Sort of a special purpose virtual machine that has
    just enough of an OS to run the browser.

    If Microsoft refuses to remove IE from Windows, at least IE could be isolated from the rest of the operating system.

    1. Re:It just occurred to me. by johnjaydk · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Why not build a virtual machine into the browser itself? Sort of a special purpose virtual machine that has just enough of an OS to run the browser.

      You mean like Java ?

      MS has already killed that idea because it commoditized the desktop and broke their API lock-in.

      --
      TCAP-Abort
    2. Re:It just occurred to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, In Vista, ie WILL run inside a sandbox. They've been going on about the lower access rights of IE7 for ages.

    3. Re:It just occurred to me. by kfg · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, pointless and idiotic redundency which only increases the size of code base, and thus possible bugs and exploits, all to fix a self induced problem which can be cured by reducing the amount of code.

      This is the sort of engineering "paradigm" that results in so much of our software being so fucked up.

      KFG

    4. Re:It just occurred to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you have access to the IE codebase?

      Feel free to fix it then for us mere mortals.

      Oh wait, you don't have access to the code and have no real solutions beyond dumping on other's ideas?

      BFD

    5. Re:It just occurred to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my jerk-o-meter is beeping

    6. Re:It just occurred to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like you see you post this on the next SELinux story.

    7. Re:It just occurred to me. by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > You mean like Java ?

      No, he doesn't know it, but he's talking about OS-level Mandatory Access Controls. More like Trusted Solaris.

      Windows Vista will supposedly have this.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    8. Re:It just occurred to me. by JayJay.br · · Score: 1

      Why not build a virtual machine into the browser itself?
      Sort of a special purpose virtual machine that has
      just enough of an OS to run the browser.


      Because that's exactly the problem. IE is only that vulnerable beacuse it is integrated with every single feature of the operating system. So, to build a VM to support the browser would be to build the whole OS into it.

    9. Re:It just occurred to me. by Cylix · · Score: 1

      You either want an application layer firewall or a chroot jail for IE.

      Good news is, they have application layer firewalls... dunno about chroot on a windows core service.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    10. Re:It just occurred to me. by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      IE7 will have a broker process that will control access to the outside system. IE won't be able to do much by yourself. I guess Microsoft already thought of that, a few years too late, though.

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    11. Re:It just occurred to me. by rosie_bhjp · · Score: 1

      is that something like Systrace?

      --
      A radio maverick jumps to internet only. The Future of Rock n Roll
    12. Re:It just occurred to me. by cnettel · · Score: 2, Informative

      IE 7 in Vista can supposedly run in a "self-lock-down" mode that denies itself a lot of access, even more than a normal "limited user account". It's been mentioned in ieblog, just google it.

    13. Re:It just occurred to me. by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Sorta, but more complicated, and enforced on a deeper level. The Linux version is called SELinux, but as of yet it doesn't work with X, so it's not useful for Firefox (etc).

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
  8. I will not make this gripe again. by sammy+baby · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Apologies, I just need to get this out of my system.

    MS "Honeymonkey" project starts netting su 9:31 10th August, 2005 Rejected

    1. Re:I will not make this gripe again. by Dr.Opveter · · Score: 1

      Right, i was already thinking it's a slow news day when they put up this 2 day old story.

      --
      Sample this!
    2. Re:I will not make this gripe again. by Been+on+TV · · Score: 1

      Yupp. They rejected my submitting this story 2 days ago. But then this place was boiling with hotter news :-))

      --
      The future is in beta
    3. Re:I will not make this gripe again. by jcuervo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it happens. My Wikipedia-DVD story got rejected five minutes before a pretty much identical story got accepted.

      I was bitching about it on the phone to a friend of mine, and he made a very good point, along the lines of "Slashdot is lame, anyway".

      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
  9. It was public. They learned it from a hacker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So what they did, was perhaps not in your best interest.

  10. Re:First or second post, Linux sucks, I rule by thc69 · · Score: 0
    ...Microsoft, and they're taking a lot more of a proactive approach to security than the goddamn open source community. Windows has only racked up around 750 exploits in the National Vunerability Database (covered recently on /.), whereas Linux has a shocking 1000+ exploits...
    Your logic is questionable. The higher number of exploits registered for Linux shows that a lot more work goes into finding them for Linux than for Windows.
    --
    Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
  11. Is it me... by OwlWhacker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    or are Microsoft's buzzwords getting way too 'weird'?

    Obviously Microsoft copied the idea from the aptly named Honeypot.

    Honeypot makes sense.

    Why ever would anybody in their right mind come up with something as lame as 'Honeymonkey'?

    Is it because Microsoft is 'getting old'? It's like the old guy saying "In my day, we used to say 'Whizzo!' when something was really neat", and the teenager laughs, and comments that it doesn't sound half as good as 'cool'.

    1. Re:Is it me... by shotfeel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you read TFA, they explain it. Yes, they based the name on honeypot, but a honeypot just sits there waiting to be attacked.

      A honeymonkey goes swinging around the net looking for someone to attack it.

      Now if MS would compile a database of offending sites and allow me to use it as a blacklist for my browser, that'd be even better. Unfortunately they'd probably only make it available for IE.

    2. Re:Is it me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are just paving the way for another patent where they invented the concept of the Honeypot, er, HoneyMonkey, that's it, HoneyMonkey.

      "Vision: World domination of all things electronic"
          from the Microsoft employee handbook.

    3. Re:Is it me... by OwlWhacker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, so a honeymonkey goes swinging around does it? You say that almost as if it's normal for honeymonkeys to swing around.

      I can't imagine that there is any real attraction, seeing a monkey swinging through the trees, whereby people would line up to attack it. And how does it mix with honey?

      I suppose that if you dunk the monkey in honey then some people may want to grab it and suck it - only if they're ravenous, I would have thought.

    4. Re:Is it me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shotfeel 1 - you 0
      He had to explain the article to you then you changed your tack. Game over.

    5. Re:Is it me... by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      So they took a perfectly good metaphor and blended it into nonsense. Yep.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    6. Re:Is it me... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Ok, here's how I see it:

      A honeypot sits there waiting for something/someone to attack it.

      A spider or bot runs around the 'net gathering stuff: Pages for search engine databases, email addresses to spam, whatever.

      So honeyspider or honeybot would have made a lot more sense than honeymonkey. WTF does a monkey have to do with the Internet? Other than "Punch the f@#$^%ing monkey to get absolutely jack shit."

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    7. Re:Is it me... by fvbommel · · Score: 1

      Now if MS would compile a database of offending sites and allow me to use it as a blacklist for my browser, that'd be even better. Unfortunately they'd probably only make it available for IE.

      Which makes sense, as the large majority of the exploits only work on IE anyway.

    8. Re:Is it me... by OwlWhacker · · Score: 1

      He had to explain the article to you

      No. I know about Microsoft's reasons why the name 'honeymonkey' came into existance - the project has been going for a while now. The name honeymonkey doesn't make sense. It sounds absurd. I've never heard of a honeymonkey.

      I find the image of a monkey made of honey, and people going after it, quite worrying.

      If Microsoft had made sense, the project would be named "Monkey Swinging Around Holding A Honeypot", or MSAHAH. Perhaps it could have been be the 'Roaming Honeypot' project?

      then you changed your tack

      No. I always maintained that the name honeymonkey was silly, and didn't make sense. I still do.

      Yes, the idea is nice, but the name sounds extremely lame.

    9. Re:Is it me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it because Microsoft is 'getting old'? It's like the old guy saying "In my day, we used to say 'Whizzo!' when something was really neat", and the teenager laughs, and comments that it doesn't sound half as good as 'cool'.

      When I worked at Microsoft I used to wear an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

    10. Re:Is it me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      23 Skidoo!

      I used to think that it was just a funny Internet joke, until my parents confirmed that they actually used to say that. :( It lost some of its magic after that.

    11. Re:Is it me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > WTF does a monkey have to do with the Internet?

      You haven't seen that video of Balmer, have you?

    12. Re:Is it me... by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      I admit, its still stretching it a bit. OTOH was this a Ballmer initiated project?

      Maybe it does make sense in a Microsoft sorta way..

    13. Re:Is it me... by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      Good point. Honeybot would have been kind of cute, though awkward in conversation.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    14. Re:Is it me... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1
      WTF does a monkey have to do with the Internet?

      You haven't seen that video of Balmer, have you?
      Ok....WTF does Balmer have to do with the Internet? :)
      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    15. Re:Is it me... by toopc · · Score: 1
      You know what a honeypot is.

      Now you know what a monkey is:
      Monkey

      And now you should understand the name.

    16. Re:Is it me... by OglinTatas · · Score: 1

      "Now if MS would compile a database of offending sites and allow me to use it as a blacklist for my browser, that'd be even better. Unfortunately they'd probably only make it available for IE."

      Actually, what they would do is make it an active X control that silently overwrites your host file.

      I keed, I keed

    17. Re:Is it me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Step 1. Take a monkey (not supplied)
      Step 2. Cover it in honey (also, not supplied)
      Step 3. Cover monkey in honey (apply liberally)
      Step 4. Let monkey run around in a bad part of the jungle (monkeys are only interested in Bad Things)
      Step 5. See what gets stuck to monkey (...).

      -fin

  12. Oh for pete's sake by Hyksos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Breaking news: Microsoft has found a security hole all by itself :P

    1. Re:Oh for pete's sake by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      No, they found an exploit in the wild for a security hole that was supposed to be secret.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    2. Re:Oh for pete's sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know Slashdot is full of fucking idiots when a post like this gets modded up as "Insightful".

      Should be (-1, Dumbass Troll).

  13. Coincidence? by Jump · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It strikes me odd, that this important security patch arrived *after* the genuine advantage update. After the genuine advantage update all our windows computers stopped making automatic updates and therefore the genuine advantage was not patched as quickly as possible. Manual interaction was required to accept the 'genuine advantage' update. I wonder how many users out there stopped watching their automatic update function to work correctly. What is the advantage of having automatic updates if you have to monitor them? What is advantage is meant in 'genuine advantage'? And why do they now publish this information, when many people out there will not have applied the patch simply because they believe they still have automatic updates running?

    1. Re:Coincidence? by sriram_2001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Genuine advantage is required only for non-security related updates. Security updates will keep streaming to your computer irrespective of Windows Genuine Advantage

    2. Re:Coincidence? by Jump · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hi, at least with Windows XP it did not!
      And it has a valid license. Automatic updates
      worked until that 'genuine advantage' thing, when
      I had to run it manually (to install the new update wizard). Only after that the genuine advantage installed and only after that
      security updates have been installed.

    3. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After the genuine advantage update all our windows computers stopped making automatic updates and therefore the genuine advantage was not patched as quickly as possible.

      Nope. Genuine advantage only applies if you try to update windows from IE manually.

      Genuine advantage does not apply if you use the automatic updates.

  14. I don't pass on a oportunity to bash on MS but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...this seems as a good initative, identifying the exploits used and then (hopefully) patching them and pursuing the sites in question.

    RTFA :P

  15. Obligatory Simpsons Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like the old guy saying "In my day, we used to say 'Whizzo!' when something was really neat"

    "We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Give me five bees for a quarter," you'd say. Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones..."

    1. Re:Obligatory Simpsons Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways.
      <snip>
      The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones..."

      I had a manager like that once...

  16. HoneyMonkey vs HoneyPot by DonZorro · · Score: 1

    "The honeymonkey client goes (to malicious Web sites) and gets exploited rather than waiting to get attacked,".

    This is just CmdrTaco's way of giving some credit to MS for actually showing some initiative...

  17. I get it... by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 1

    From what I can tell is that Honey, is how they pay the one thousand monkeys working for one thousand years to create their operating system. Well I for one welcome our new Ape Overlords.

    --
    "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
  18. Disclosure by Lifewish · · Score: 1

    I guess this puts one more hole in the "security researchers should keep security holes to themselves" coffin. Obviously there's some fairly smart people out there in the black-hat community - if there's a flaw such as the recent issue with Cisco routers, they're gonna discover it eventually.

    --
    For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
  19. Mmmmm Honeymonkeys... by uberchicken · · Score: 1

    Nice'n'crunchy.

  20. clue stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone that has actually been in the hacker community knows there are numerous unpublished exploits, which the manufacturer doesn't know about. it's far easier to find an exploit than it is to build a secure system.

  21. honeymonkeys... by arootbeer · · Score: 4, Funny

    So Microsoft has a room full of computers that do nothing but automatically surf the "questionable" parts of the web? Anybody wanna guess how many hours a day that room is packed with employees just sitting in front of a computer "doing nothing"?

    1. Re:honeymonkeys... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Actually, they aren't "computers" in the sense you describe. They're actually virtual machines running inside 1U rack mounted servers.

      And they don't have monitors. So, if you're sitting in front of them doing "nothing", then you're just watching the lights on the panel blinkulate and flashify.

    2. Re:honeymonkeys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of me knew that.

      But the rest wanted to karma whore... :D

    3. Re:honeymonkeys... by mattsucks · · Score: 1
      And they don't have monitors. So, if you're sitting in front of them doing "nothing", then you're just watching the lights on the panel blinkulate and flashify.

      All I see now is blonde, brunette, redhead....
    4. Re:honeymonkeys... by jcuervo · · Score: 1
      And they don't have monitors. So, if you're sitting in front of them doing "nothing", then you're just watching the lights on the panel blinkulate and flashify.
      ...

      I need to go back to sleep, I completely misread that as "flatulate".
      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
  22. More Misdirection from the Masters by SkiifGeek · · Score: 5, Informative

    I can't believe that people are lapping this up.

    The so-called vulnerability that Microsoft claim to have found a 0-day for in the second week of July was actually discovered by SEC-Consult, and first published on June 29, having discovered it, and notified Microsoft on June 17. There was effectively nil response from Microsoft (they claimed to have not been able to reproduce the issue...).

    While many people believe that the sample object used, the javaprxy.dll, was the flaw itself, the first paragraph of the advisory (the background) indicates that it is a COM level issue, and they identified at least 20 vulnerable objects on a standard XP installation.

    It was this issue that Microsoft ignored until the recent Black Tuesday updates, and then claimed ownership of via the honey monkey project.

    Sorry, guys, you can't claim something that has already been published openly, and ignored when notified.

    1. Re:More Misdirection from the Masters by Amoeba · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Sorry, guys, you can't claim something that has already been published openly, and ignored when notified.

      If you read the SecurityFocus article you'll notice that MS is claiming they found the first 0-day exploit for this vulnerability *in the wild*. You are absolutely correct that a proof of vuln was published by SEC-Consult. However, no known exploit yet existed to take advantage of the vuln. And the SEC-Consulting page does note that MS was finally able to reproduce the problem.

      You and I both know that it's a matter of semantics and the MS PR machine is in full effect here in the way this announcement was worded. However, that doesn't negate the interesting aspects of the honeymonkey approach. By actively trolling the net for "in the wild" exploits and vulnerabilities they're increasing the chances of finding and (hopefully) addressing security issues in a proactive manner.

      Despite the fact that MS is indirectly responsible for my paycheck from my day job, I've never viewed them as a particularly security-focused company and I'll be the first to admit their track record blows goats. But the honeymonkey project is a step in the right direction and could be a useful approach for other OS's and security-minded orgs [1]. It's a neat concept and I'm frankly surprised it's MS doing it.

      [1] I'm currently the moderator for SecurityFocus' penetration testing mail list. I don't get to see as much discussion of these types of things as say, the vuln-dev list, but it would be great discussion material to see if a similar approach could be utilized for pen-testing.

      --
      Do not taunt Happy-Fun Ball
  23. Obligatory.... by dhasenan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Even a monkey can find a flaw in Windows.

  24. Security Risk by CSHARP123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is good. This should have been done by MS a long time ago and this should be an ongoing process. Everyone knows no OS is bullet proof on security terms. Better late than never.

  25. bwahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Honeymonkey? That's almost as bad as "Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer". Probably just as worthless too.

    1. Re:bwahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

      except the latter will get you a high paying job where you do no real work.

      the former will just get you laughed at.

      suck my balls.

  26. Re:First or second post, Linux sucks, I rule by dhasenan · · Score: 1

    Not necessarily. You could say there are fewer flaws to find in Windows.

    On the other hand, most remote exploits for Linux depend on SSH. Want a secure desktop Linux? Turn off SSH. And remove sudo.

    Besides, those flaws are in specific applications, not the OS itself, in many cases.

    Also, most flaws found in Linux are patched within days of discovery, announced upon verification, and less serious than the Windows counterparts. Given those facts, I'd say that less work goes into finding Windows exploits. Perhaps more goes into patching them, though--you have to ensure compatability with a very wide range of programs from 1995 to the present. And when I find a bug, I can't submit a patch to Microsoft.

  27. A step in the right direction by kungfuSiR · · Score: 0

    Everyone can sit disect mistakes a company like Microsoft has made, but the important thing is that they are making steps in the right direction to improve security for users. That being said they are no where near being perfect, but at this point in time what software company really is?

    --
    I love to deploy my packages
    1. Re:A step in the right direction by ShoobieRat · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      Microsoft has a not-so-reputable past, perhaps, but at least they are making clear efforts to bring about change.

      Like you said, no company is perfect. This goes for OS's, too. Anyone who claims Linux is perfect, is a damn fool and knows it. Trouble is, due to MS's wide user base, and the fact that most places downplay anything negative about Linux, has lead to MS's problems being continually headlined. It's like a world full of idiots turning minor problems into 9/11-style ordeals.

      And honestly, anyone who spends their life causing damage to others (regardless of the existance of the ability to do so), deserves to get a beating.

  28. What Makes Reading /. Hard Some Times ... by hagrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... are reader responses to an article like this. Some people just refuse to see the trees I guess.

    If an indepedent, third party security company were performing these web site audits, the company wouldn't be admonished, but readers would still attack the "unfinished product" which was Windows XP unpatched. However, how can you fault a company that is trying to correct tens of years of security ignorance with new pro-active efforts?

    MSFT is basically performing external penetration testing of their software while security teams are writing vulnerability scanners and focusing on individual aspects of an application's design. In fact, one could argue that this is one of the more effective ways of performing security testing since exploits in the wild can exist in the wild for months before any security company diagnoses the vulnerability and this method will identify areas of the Internet that seem to disseminate these exploits between web sites.

    If you want to comment on the lack of security focus in the past, definitely. Are they playing a major game of catch up? Definitely. Should IE be so tightly meshed with the OS? Of course not. But can some of you just grow up and get past the MSFT bias and stop doing childish crap like making fun of the "honeymonkey" term or accusing workers of just sitting in the room not doing anything?

    1. Re:What Makes Reading /. Hard Some Times ... by Sfing_ter · · Score: 1

      It would be, but they seem to be using data that was provided by other parties as to what sites have "malicious" self-install-while-i-look-at-the-site-even-though- my-box-is-patched.
      If they were doing actual research/work on these issues there would be a larger list of sites...

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
  29. WAH, WAH! THERE'S SAND IN MY VAGINA!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't like it, GET THE FUCK OUT

    1. Re:WAH, WAH! THERE'S SAND IN MY VAGINA!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You Suck !!!

      Why don't you say something usefull? Maybe you should GET THE FUCK OUT and come back when you have something usefull to say!!!

    2. Re:WAH, WAH! THERE'S SAND IN MY VAGINA!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who exactly made you the Slashdot community's spokesperson?

    3. Re:WAH, WAH! THERE'S SAND IN MY VAGINA!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd just like to say that this is the coolest thread subject line ever.

  30. zero day exploit?! by jurv!s · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Microsoft's "monkeys" find first zero-day exploit

    How can you call it a zero-day exploit with a straight face when you found it in the wild??

    --
    sigs are for fools and trolls. no signature is *always* appropriate. you should turn them off in your preferences.
  31. Honeymonkey by amcdiarmid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I assume that they are combining web-monkey with Honeypot. (not that they are somking anything.)

    Seriously, MS has set up a bunch of machines that actively surf the web trolling for vulnerabilities. I guess it's the "If we can't code securely, at least we can find the holes to plug." theory. Considering IE, it's not a bad idea.

    It would be nice if they shared the exploits with everyone, at least once a patch exists, though.

    OK, good job Microsoft: Now if you could implement a "least privileges" model by default....

    1. Re:Honeymonkey by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1
      Seriously, MS has set up a bunch of machines that actively surf the web trolling for vulnerabilities. I guess it's the "If we can't code securely, at least we can find the holes to plug." theory. Considering IE, it's not a bad idea.

      I'd have called them canaries.

      In the 19th Century, when miners went down a pit, they'd lower a canary down first in a little cage, and if the atmosphere was noxious, as it frequently was, guess what the canary did. It died!

      The canary's job was to go into the most dangerous, unpleasant, and smeggy situations and see if it could stay alive. Then they'd know if it was safe to send in the important people.
      Also, in one of the many wars on our miserable little planet, we used to drive sheep across minefields. The principle is the same.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    2. Re:Honeymonkey by Afrosheen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but using sheep for mine detectors is much more fun than a bird in a cage.

        If the bird dies, you get nothing.

        If the sheep dies, you get a new pair of Napoleon Dynamite sheepskin boots!

      I bet the guys back then were hunkered down, saying, "come on...just a little further...sniff it out buddy...that's right", meanwhile they were placing bets on how far the sheep would go. It sounds like a fun win-win situation!

    3. Re:Honeymonkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon, if you're gonna quote Red Dwarf (which I applaud), at least cite it.

    4. Re:Honeymonkey by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      "OK, good job Microsoft: Now if you could implement a "least privileges" model by default...."

      Windows Vista. It's called "User Account Protection".

    5. Re:Honeymonkey by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Nah, part of the fun is to see if people recognize the quotes. Disclosing it would eliminate the fun. Take the last bit after the blockquote for example.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  32. They could just analyze attacks on own servers by Been+on+TV · · Score: 1

    Why do they need a whole own setup for this? Should think analyzing what must be constant attacks on their own servers would give plenty of clue of what's going on.

    Perhaps more extensive research into own source-code and a rethink of the security model in Windows would have yielded better results, blocking these attacks at the doorstep. After all, a more secure Windows would put these attackers out of business faster and more efficient, and be far easier to manage than such a hunt on the net where the attacker most likely is out of reach and jurisdiction.

    One observation Microsoft makes in the report is that "Several recent reports suggest that some companies may actually be building a business model around such attacks." (Microsoft itself springs to mind; sell vulnerable system, create malware removal tools, charge customers for removal tools, PROFIT!)

    --
    The future is in beta
    1. Re:They could just analyze attacks on own servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do they need a whole own setup for this? Should think analyzing what must be constant attacks on their own servers would give plenty of clue of what's going on.

      Think harder.

      They are not trying to find server exploits, but client exploits. 'The setup' is actively browsing the web trying to get infected by malicious sites. Something a server cannot do.

    2. Re:They could just analyze attacks on own servers by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 1

      rethink of the security model in Windows

      Please, enlighten me, what's wrong with the Windows security model?

      It's largely based on VMS, and uses Access Control Lists to secure many types of system resources, and it's got an excellent LDAP-based directory system for managing resources across machines and organizations (Active Directory), as well as the ability to delegate control over these resources on a fine grained level. It's got a great single-sign on domain model that allows users to access resource across not just machines, but entire companies, all while maintaining this delegation.

      In fact, the Windows security model is, in most ways, more advanced and better thought out than the traditional Unix security model. There have been many independant projects to integrate some of the standard Windows security features (or VMS features, if you prefer) into Unix and Linux, especially ACL support.

      I can think of a few things that I would change if I could (the ability to apply security descriptors to Windows Messages, for instance, or the fact that Microsoft hasn't *enforced* the policy of having applications run without admin privs), but the model itself is very solid.

      What hasn't been solid in the past is the *implementation* of the model. Because it's the most attacked OS on the planet, people find lots of bugs and exploit them. Some might also say that Microsoft's code quality is below average, although I don't agree with that because I've never seen any solid evidence of it.

      At any rate, please... elaborate.

    3. Re:They could just analyze attacks on own servers by Been+on+TV · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right. It is not the security model as such that is at fault, but the enforcement of it. It is no good when every process and user on the system can do the equivalent of setting

      SET PROC /PRIV=SYSPRV

      >Some might also say that Microsoft's code quality is below average, although I don't agree with that because I've never seen any solid evidence of it.

      It'd be better for us all if did get to see it

      --
      The future is in beta
    4. Re:They could just analyze attacks on own servers by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 1

      What exactly does that command do? (Sorry, I'm not a VMS junkie. :) As far as seeing the code... you could always become a certified MS partner and take a look via shared source.

    5. Re:They could just analyze attacks on own servers by Been+on+TV · · Score: 1

      Sorry, a little late with a reply to this.... The command sets full system privileges on the process, meaning it is allowed to do anything including destroying the system.

      --
      The future is in beta
  33. Should we start a HoneyTux project? by borwells · · Score: 1

    Regardless what you think about Microsoft, what they are doing is a good thing and something the Linux communit should consider.

    Install a the newest beta of your distro of choice on whatever old hardware you have laying around and join it to a distributed network. Someone put together a list of "questionable sites". Monitor the file systems with tripwire or AIDE or something similar. Post the logs and such to the distributed network for review.

    --
    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
  34. Sorting Wheat from Chaff by SkiifGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I do not deny that the Honeymonkey project is useful, and will be in the future (although the figures listed for number of sites with malware seems low).

    Because there was a lot of contrary reporting and postings which appeared around the start of July, it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff in order to obtain accurate information, but I do remember reading that proof of concept code definitely existed, and was published, at the start of July, with one example being reported on the ISC Diary. I also recall a post on a mailing list that suggested that exploits were already circulating, but I can not track down a citation for that. I really would not call it a 0-day (which is probably semantics), but at least their project picked it up within two weeks of the POC being published.

    To Microsoft's credit, they do publicly acknowledge SEC-Consult as being responsible for discovery of the initial flaws, on the patch information page.

    Sticking with M05-38, the image handling errors which were fixed are another example where Microsoft ignored public disclosure, especially when the disclosure sparked a level of interest on the Full-Disclosure mailing list.

    With respect to pen-testing, my approach has always been to obtain a copy of the target software, and to test locally, before heading out for the client systems. Although not automated like the Honeymonkeys, it achieves a similar purpose. I also think that the monkey component of the honeymonkey might refer to the crazed monkey(?) testing tool in the original Macs, which performed random input (mouse movement, clicks, keys (I think)) as part of testing for unexpected application behaviour.

  35. More info in MS's full report by beacher · · Score: 2, Funny
    Located HERE - PDF WARNING..

    The approach we took was to collect an initial list of 5000+ potentially malicious URLs by doing a Web search for Windows "hosts" files [HF] that are used to block advertisements and bad sites, and lists of known-bad Web sites that host some of the most malicious spyware programs

    Kinda like testing condoms with hookers.. only your condom is made by MS...

  36. New Cert by Stanistani · · Score: 2, Funny

    How many courses would I have to take to become a
      Microsoft Certified HoneyMonkey

    1. Re:New Cert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one more than it takes to become a *nix* flunky ...this does not count the class in MS bashing...

    2. Re:New Cert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      42, the standard answer.

  37. Honeymonkeys taste... by TheNucleon · · Score: 0
    ...just like chicken.

    Mmmmmmm, Honeymonkey...

    These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of my employer, my family, my friends, or my cats.

    --
    My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
  38. What happens when sites block Honeymonkey IP's by DJStealth · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't these sites eventually get smart enough to know the honeymonkey IP's and block them?

    1. Re:What happens when sites block Honeymonkey IP's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. They have no way of recognizing that a client is a honeymonkey.

  39. Wha? by identity0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In his book "In the beginning was the command line", Neal Stephenson wrote that some newspaper articles would be indecipherable to someone who had lived in a cave for the past 50 years, because it talks about "software", "operating systems", and "windows vs. apples".

    Now I am trying to figure out what someone who has lived in a cave since the Eisenhower era would make of this headline, "Honeymonkeys Discover Undisclosed Vulnerability".

    "Honey... monkey? Vulnerability? Undisclosed? uuuuh?" *HEAD EXPLODES*

    (Full text of In the Beginning... is on Stephenson's site)

  40. honeymonkeys get hacked by webservers by suitti · · Score: 0

    Not published in the article is that the honeymonkeys were duped into revealing credit card numbers, costing Micro$oft hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    --
    -- Stephen.
    1. Re:honeymonkeys get hacked by webservers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Taco was duped into...duping his own story.

      I'm curious why he chose to delete this dupe while leaving his dupe of Zonk's Xbox boot code article up.

  41. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They both refer to the same thing :P

    I mean, what else do MCSEs do other than surf the questionable parts of the internet unsupervised?

    Speaking of which, I'd better get back to work...

  42. Vanishing dup -- revisionist history by kawika · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else see the dup article about honeymonkeys from CmdrTaco that was here around 5:15pm eastern time? I guess he just deleted it to prevent humiliation.

    I made a post there but it seems to be lost at this point.

  43. what the ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now we're back here..... uhh..

  44. so... by subgrappler · · Score: 1

    if i RTFA correctly, their honeymonkeynet found a new 0day that was previously unknown? a vulnerability that has been out there for who knows how long and has been used to exploit an unknown # of surfers? i do recall a while back some MS spokesperson saying something about how patching is bad because their patches are reverse engineered into exploits and how if MS didnt release patches, then no one would be able to write exploits... i guess that argument has been thrown out the window (again).